Slashdot Mirror

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://africa-arabia-plate.we...
[Zec 14:4 KJV] 4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which [is] before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, [and there shall be] a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
https://discussions.godandscie...
https://www.tomorrowsworld.org...
https://www.blueletterbible.or...
http://www.biblesearchers.com/...
And, as a bonus, I'll leave this for the math nerds to dissect... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... http://www.telusplanet.net/pub...

There's good evidence to believe that unicorns (genus Oryx ) exist in this universe. See, for example, this photo. And some people find evidence of God in cosmology.

I generally tow the Slashdot line, but this is one of the topics where I definitely disagree with the Slashdot norm. Since those siding with Leakey are well represented, I thought I would provide some perspective from the other side: those who believe in a literal seven day creation account.

Well, there are several "other sides". (I even belong to one of them - I think evolution is the best explanation for the forms of life on Earth, but I also don't think the debate's going to be history any time soon, at least not in some parts of the world, and I think some of the comments on the article and follow-up comments are solid evidence for my belief.)

Even amongst those who reject evolution, there's more than just Biblical literalists - there's a Biblical argument against young-earth creationism on at least one creationist site. (It's all word-chopping, so it's unlikely to convince those who wish to believe something else; they'll just chop the words differently.)

And I know faith is not popular around here, but I maintain a faith that there is an alternative explanation for why this evidence seems to be pointing towards evolution (I won't bore you with repeating ideas you've surely heard before). I strongly believe that science can account for everything natural in the world, but I also believe that any attempts to explain things in a manner contrary to the Bible will eventually be demonstrated to be incorrect.

By which you mean "contrary to your interpretation of the Bible". The folks at appear to read it differently from the way you read it, as per the page I cited.

While evolution is the prevailing belief today, I have faith that it will be disproved in time, just as the skeptical historians were disproved.

...and I have an extremely strong suspicion that it won't. Stalemate.

Anyway, all I sought to do here was represent the other side so you could see how someone who likes to think of themselves as rational can possibly disagree.

Whether those reading what you say will view you as rational or rationalizing is another matter. Humans' ability to construct systems of thought is impressive; this includes humans' ability to construct systems of thought capable of leading to just about any conclusion the humans constructing the system of thought want. (That's why I like science - it at least tries to be a bit less ex recto.)

I generally tow the Slashdot line, but this is one of the topics where I definitely disagree with the Slashdot norm. Since those siding with Leakey are well represented, I thought I would provide some perspective from the other side: those who believe in a literal seven day creation account.

Well, there are several "other sides". (I even belong to one of them - I think evolution is the best explanation for the forms of life on Earth, but I also don't think the debate's going to be history any time soon, at least not in some parts of the world, and I think some of the comments on the article and follow-up comments are solid evidence for my belief.)

Even amongst those who reject evolution, there's more than just Biblical literalists - there's a Biblical argument against young-earth creationism on at least one creationist site. (It's all word-chopping, so it's unlikely to convince those who wish to believe something else; they'll just chop the words differently.)

And I know faith is not popular around here, but I maintain a faith that there is an alternative explanation for why this evidence seems to be pointing towards evolution (I won't bore you with repeating ideas you've surely heard before). I strongly believe that science can account for everything natural in the world, but I also believe that any attempts to explain things in a manner contrary to the Bible will eventually be demonstrated to be incorrect.

By which you mean "contrary to your interpretation of the Bible". The folks at appear to read it differently from the way you read it, as per the page I cited.

While evolution is the prevailing belief today, I have faith that it will be disproved in time, just as the skeptical historians were disproved.

...and I have an extremely strong suspicion that it won't. Stalemate.

Anyway, all I sought to do here was represent the other side so you could see how someone who likes to think of themselves as rational can possibly disagree.

Whether those reading what you say will view you as rational or rationalizing is another matter. Humans' ability to construct systems of thought is impressive; this includes humans' ability to construct systems of thought capable of leading to just about any conclusion the humans constructing the system of thought want. (That's why I like science - it at least tries to be a bit less ex recto.)

Actually, it was my understanding that the Hebrew word that is translated into English as "day" in Genesis 1 is

...the word yôm (Strong's H3117).

the same word that is used to refer to the period of time from sunset until the following sunset.

Among other meanings. It can also refer to an indefinite period, much as English day can. Compare English "one of these days", "back in the day", etc. It has similar metaphorical meaning in Hebrew, and what is described as happening on some creative "days" cannot happen in 24 hours. See also Genesis 2:4, where Moses refers to the six creative "days" as one "day", and 2 Peter 3:8, where Peter compares God's concept of a "day" to a millennium to indicate that God operates on a different timescale from humans.

So tired of hearing this tripe about Einstein. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

Both men were victims of the time and rearing they received. Were they to be brought up in today's world, my best guess is that they'd be like Neal DeGrasse Tyson and/or Richard Dawkins in their belief systems.

I think someone needs to re-read Leviticus. Yahweh most certainly hates homosexuals.

And amputees. God hates amputees so much there has never been a miracle restoration of an amputated limb, no matter how much praying is done at Lourdes or other "miracle" sites. Not even an amputated finger or thumb has been restored. God probably also hates paraplegiacs, eunuchs, and a bunch of others, including those who merely lost their adult teeth.

I posted the first question as AC and there is site that explains this (and other) questions:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/neverheard.html

It would be nice if more "Christians" read this and adjusted their rhetoric accordingly.

Much of modern science has been founded on scientists who are Christians.

Believing in creationism is a sure sign of a bad scientist.

I can't believe that I am quoting this website .. but I think you should try telling your point of view to these scientists for a start.

I don't have time to look all of these up, but you can try this quote on for size:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Right. That quote is on the site I linked as well HERE. There are also other quotes:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

and

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

and finally:

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."

First of all, your ignorance is downright supernatural in itself. Very VERY few Christians believe that the Earth is 6000 years old. But since you seem to think that Christians are so ignorant, maybe you should tell the modern scientists that base their knowledge on the science that came from these guys:
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Max Planck (1858-1947)
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

All believed in God, many were devout Christians. Of course, that is a very partial list. Do you really think that you are smart enough to you say that these guys are unable to "can apply a modicum of critical thinking to remedy their condition." Sorry, but until modern astronomy, physics, philosophy, or even the scientific basis for temperature are based on your work, you are unqualified to criticize these guys.

(if you are to mod this off topic, it's only fair to mod the parent OT first)

Well, the whole "big bang" theory in my mind still seemed rather odd. As far as my understanding go, all existence was in one big super-dense super-hot pinpoint of "something" until it exploded into a universe, and the expansion continues as time goes on.

OK, so where did that pinpoint of something come from. And where - if any - did the something before that come from?

Religion is often used to describe things that science hasn't yet done so for. Essentially the "because God wanted/did it" is the end-answer to unanswerable questions. But that doesn't mean that science and religion have to be at odds. As more and more complexity is discovered in the design of life, etc, the more I have to think "how could that just be a random accident." And if the answer is that existence is so unimaginable immense that even the tiny odds of that "accident" can come true, then how come by that same concept a superintelligent, superpowerful being cannot exist to act as the overseer of human destiny?

OK, so said being may not exist to the expectations/specifications of the religious community. But as said community always seems to state that the ways/intent of God are beyond the understanding of men, then that pretty much captures that whatever we have on "record" is imperfect at best anyways. Of course this is just IMHO, but there are plenty of famous quotes in science that says more or less the same thing.

Can you please tell me who does believe that?

The big three monotheistic religions all believe in an invisible man in the sky. You're not the first person to raise objections to that description of the entity also known as God/Jehovah/Yahweh/Allah, but it is an accurate one nevertheless.

You clearly are either:

1) trolling 2) completely ignorant of the beliefs of monotheistic religions.

For example the word "invisible" is meaningless when applied to God, who is incorporeal, as is "in the sky". Man is also not applicable, unless you can reasonably define a being who exists outside time and space, is sexless (except for Christians, and then specifically only to one person of the trinity when incarnate), etc.

Opps! It looks like every single word of your description is wrong. How is that accurate?

Assuming you are ignorant, rather than trolling, I suggest you either desist from making comments about things you do not understand, or you take the trouble to learn about the subject. I suggest reading this, this, this, and this. They are all IMO simplistic or flawed, and it is much better explained in books than anything I can find online.

At some point you have to "believe". You either believe in a higher power or you believe what some human scientist says. Either way you have to believe something. Check out this article:

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/locke.html

Remember that everyone has some sort of agenda. Be it a Biblical writer or a scientist, you would do well to know what their true intent in disseminating information.

One of those (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/religion_vs_iq.html) makes the point that GDP had a more significant factor on IQ than did religion. But you would expect that as it is primarily a Christian organisation. Perhaps you should be so curious as to read the articles and not just assume you understand from the title...

Secondly, there have been a significant number of religious types who have managed to be considered the 'father' of a branch of science as well as others who have demonstrated a considerable ability to out think their collegues. (Don't be fooled into thinking that atheism began with Darwin; it has a long history.)

Thirdly; (personal anecdote) I am continually frustrated by my secular colleagues (who have no trouble mocking me for my 'inability to think for myself' ) reluctance to uncover why things happen. They are happy that 'science' has the answers and argue on the basis of 'authority'! (Logic be damned!)

Because those who do not subscribe easily to dogmatic lines of thought are naturally more inquisitive, they are the ones more likely to discover new facts about the world.

Apparently I am a anomaly as I am frequently told to just believe it works, don't worry about how. My peers are wearied of my attention to details. I'm also often accused of being dogmatic -- rarely in regards to religion though (Perhaps I should develop a delusion of grandeur!). Most of the articles conclusions would be better subscribed to education, not religion.

Religion's affect on education is a better measure (Yes, I believe education should be separated from religion -- I know many Christians, some atheists, a few Muslims and several pagans. No one's background should inspire confidence in their ability to think -- they are still human.) as religion is unfortunately very susceptible to bureaucracy which is inverse to intelligence. jk.

It took 2 minutes with Google to find these:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/religion_vs_iq.html
http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/intelligence.html

I didn't see anything supporting the opposite conclusion.

Please explain to me then why it is clearly outlined in the first chapter of the bible that there are seven seperate days? Are each of these "a long time" and are they all of different length? Reading the text literally in either Hebrew or English does not give the slightest indication of that.

It does in Hebrew.

The rest of your post doesn't actually have a scientific basis because it isn't what scientists are saying.

Please explain to me why Genesis has two different creation stories? One has God walking around like a human, in the other he is speaking from afar in the sky.

And I suppose you'll want links for that too, or you won't believe me. That's fine. If you don't wish to look it up yourself, it's hard to help you. Give a man a fish vs. teach a man to fish....

wow. ok. so einstein, planck, kelvin, mendel, faraday, boyle, newton, descartes, galileo, kepler, bacon and copernicus were all wrong, and you are right.

got it.

... can be found here. I believe that the whole notion of a global flood is ridiculous even if you take the Bible literally! There are plenty of contextual clues in the Biblical text that the flood cannot be truly global.

I just named several in that linked document. The whole development of the embryo continues to be mistaught in many schools today despite the fact that modern medicine has long since debunked these myths. There is also this interesting article which attempts to debunk most of the theories regarding human evolution by studying the DNA. While I am not in complete agreement with the conclusion, it is definite some food for thought. Make sure to check out the article's references.

One of the big problems I see is that school textbooks are not updated with the current information. One textbook I saw being used in schools still referenced the Nebraska man!

You're baffled as to why some people keep saying that Mormons aren't Christians?

http://www.carm.org/lds/compare.htm

http://www.godandscience.org/cults/mormdiff.html

The last time I checked, Christianity was not founded on the Book of Mormon, nor was the Book of Mormon canonized! Last time I checked, the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost all referred to the triunal nature of God in Christianity, whereas in Mormonism they actually refer to three separate Gods. The last time I checked, Mormons believe in the existance of multiple Gods. In fact, Mormon men (never women, mind you) have a chance of becoming Gods in the after-life, and ruling over their own kingdom! You may want to believe that Mormons are Christian, but your belief is not founded on the plain-truth statements made by canonized Mormon literature, which includes the various bullshit prophecies revealed by the various LDS living prophets (equivalent to fortune-tellers for those of you not in-the-know).

harry potter is evil. Just like d&d. In all honesty, there are a ton of nutbags who make out everything to be evil. They're very insecure in their belief and think everything that offers a slightly different view is EBIL! MMO's or anything that have non-Christian's in them... are legitimate targets for these nutter butters.

How sad for you.
Many of the forefathers of science would disagree with you.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefa ith.html

I think you missed the point. Science which can be further boiled down to observation is incomplete. The problem is you cannot observe the "Big Bang" or anything else that came before us. You can make conjecture about the past based on what you observe now. Sometime that conjecture is correct and sometimes it is not. That is what these two scientists did who got the Nobel Prize.

Philosophy though can seek to define the issues at hand and tackle them through critical thinking. None of the major issues defined by Philosophy have ever been solved by science. That is to say that if observation and experimentation could solve these questions then philosophers would not have asked them.

Religion seeks to solve a lot of these philisophical questions. But obviously you don't beleive in anything which religion espouses. Well did you think at all about what Science says about Religion. True, you cannot observe God. True it would be hard to prove scientifically that Christ was God. Have you ever looked at prophecy though? It will really amaze you what science says about prophecy. That is observable predictions being made and then confirmed through scientific observation. See http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prophchr. html and http://www.teachinghearts.org/dre03propchristnotes .html for some examples. These are links I just pulled from a quick google search.

What you describe is called Day-Age creationism, as opposed to young Earth creationism. Some people believe in Day-Age; others believe in young Earth.

This web page expresses exactly what you just said. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein. html

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/intelligent design.html

This web site makes claims on the fallibility of ID, I thought it would be intesting to have /.ers analize it.

You make a great deal of assumptions about my background in your post., assumptions that are in fact quite wrong. Let me then also say that you further make assumptions about my argument that are very wrong. My background is virtually irrelevant, but let me assure you that an appointment to Imperial College London in 1990 , S1 levels in Physics, Math and Chemistry and a full research fellowship are part of my past. Further I have been a database developer on more than a small number of medical research projects where I was the statistician or worked closely with one and had to develop the reports and reporting system.

As to your assumptions about my statements, it should be noted that YECs allow for non empirical data, aka the supernatural in their systems, this does not preclude empirical data, but it does temper it. rather than go any further I would suggest that you take a look at a brief list of some things scientific that are mentioned theologically in scripture. please keep in mind that these writings are between 4,000 and 2,000 years old when reading them. rather than list them here is a quick link Ultimately, you are extremely off base in your assumptions.

When you explained why some people were so opposed to evolution, and when you explained "plain vanilla Christianity"... you admit it was not plain or vanilla to the majority of Christians. I think many sects have the view that they are merely the "basic" and "literal" meaning of their scripture, and they are often most emphatic exactly where they conflict with the more common view of the religion. Even some other creationists argue that No Death Before the Fall is a misinterpretation of the Bible. The second link explicity refers to it as "heresy". Chuckle.

I'm not going to attempt to argue theology or who is right or wrong. I'm just noting that what you call "plain vanilla Christianity" opposition to evolution is actually based on a particular interpretation of the bible and that most Christians dissagree. I would call the conflict you describe a point of dogma to the extent that some people seem actively blind to the notion that evolution does not equal atheism. Not that they reject the beliefs of other Christians... but an active blind spot that God other religions or even Christiantity exists or has any meaning absent that particular dogma.

Actual vanilla Christianity sees no conflict, that there need not be any conflict between biological evolution and the soul of man being saved through Jesus. That a literal reading of Genesis can or does include death of animals before the initial sin of man, or that that much or all of the Bible must be read in a nonliteral way anyway.

no serious amounts of transition species in the fossil record

There are TONS of transitional forms in the fossil record. Anyone who doesn't think so either hasn't seen just how much evidence there is, or is setting impossible standards. (Post note: I guess I got carried away below explaining transitions, but it was something I wanted to read more on anway. Chuckle.)

In some areas the fossil record gives an extremely detailed sequence of forms, and in other areas the record is very spotty. And of course the longer the time span (and thus the bigger the changes) the more likely you are for solid chains to break up into almost connected chain segments or to hit a signifigant hole in the record. Especially when you start looking several tens or hundreds of millions of years ago.

The comical part is that whenever a major new missing link is found smack in the middle of a major "hole" - that somehow isn't evidence of evolution. It has half the features of one thing and half the features of something else, but it's somehow not an intermediate form. That new find merely increases the number of "missing links" - now there's a TWO missing links! One on either side of it. I don't know whether to chuckle or to groan.

One of the weaker parts of the tree is the chain between dinsarurs and birds. Even there we have fossils from about a dozen species in the chain. At each step one or more uniquely bird features is introduced and one or more uniquely lizard features is lost. At first we go from a pure lizard to a nearly identical lizard with feathers. The teeth change to a form unique to ancient true birds. Light porous bones are introduced. The arms/wings lengthening and going through several steps. The wrists and claws being lost peice by peice. The spine and tail go through multiple stages into bird forms. The eggs change form along with a change to bird-type nesting habits. The skull changes. The spine-skull attachment reverse from rear mounted to front mounted. The bird-wishbone appears. The development of a huge keel on the sternum to anchor powerful breast muscles. The ribcage changes and articulates with the sternum. The introduction of the single back-pointing bird-toe, and other leg changes. One of the last changes is the complete loss of teeth and the development of the bill. Over a hundred changes in all.

At least a dozen poi

That might fit reasonably well with the Bible, which does not in any way teach a global flood.

The idea of a global flood came from a hyperliteral interpretation of some words in the original that were mistranslated into English. Studying everything the Bible actually says about the Flood clearly refutes its globality.

"The day-age (progressive) creation account is non-literal and contradicts the clear teaching of Genesis." I hear or see this complaint quite often, although the statement is incorrect regarding both accusations. I take all of the biblical creation accounts literally. Nothing is symbolic. The Hebrew word yom has three literal meanings - a 12-hour period of time (sunrise to sunset), a 24-hour period of time from sunset to sunset (the Hebrew day), and an indefinite period of time . The day-age interpretation of Genesis does not require the use of symbolism to explain the creation account.

My emphasis. Full article here

Justin.
Incidentally atheist, but above all scientist

Speaking of the Flood, what the Bible actually says is rather different than what 99% of people (even Christians) think it says.

Best writup on the topic I've seen

If your science teaches you anything let it be that todays science facts will always be overturned tomorrows science; don't build of your science a religion as brittle and baseless as that you think you are attacking.

"particularly now that genetic science has disproven the fundamental premis of the Book of Mormon" http://www.godandscience.org/cults/dna.html

or possibly not, as google shows (start at the top and work down)

My experience shows people often study enough to justify their own notions and then therefore don't need to read any contrary views as they are so obviously wrong.

A superficial and brief understanding of DNA and mormon scripture may result in almost any opinion, but I'm certain of this, that most conclusions drawn by most humans are on the basis of faulty, insufficient and badly understood evidence; and this covers buying VCR's, taking out home loans, choosing schools and wallpaper as well as what to watch on TV, how best to re-install windows and what sort of God is most likely.

Top tip is not to let it get you down but concentrate on being the best sort of person you can be. Mormonism makes some people better. Perhaps not being mormon makes you better.

As a framework for life, I like it and it does me good, and I just had an uplifting weekend that you can share in english or dozens of languages (text and individual media items to appear soon). See if you can agree with any of it, see if any of it is designed to keep people in subjection, or see if it is designed to lift people up.

Sam

Let's just remember (let me ephasize these words) most ex-members who persecute the church tend to be those who have themselves violated the covenants they agreed to live by in the church and were cast out for not repenting and obeying the covenants they agreed to live by (others may call thse people hypocrite), I just see these people as angry and ashamed of themselves, so they blame someone else for their problems.

I suspect this is the only post I will have made to slashdot that will be in agreement with the grandfather post (anyone examining our /. "relationship" will see we've marked each other as foes, so we obviously don't see eye to eye on much.)

Your characterization of ex-Mormons may be true of a few particularly dysfunctional refugees from that particular cult, but it is hardly representative of the majority of people who manage to free themselves from the LDS church's clutches.

My grandparents (descendents of Aaron Johnson, the man who designed many of the roads and bridges in Utah, who had extensive dealings and correspondence with Brigham Young, and who was a polygamist with 12 wives and hid in the hills during the 1850s as the US calvary was hunting said polygamists ... until the civil war forced the US government to recall the troups for more pressing issues) managed to get free of Mormonism and raise their kids in a secular manner. They remained quite positive toward the church's social stances (a mistake IMHO, but they came from a conservative generation), while quite dismissive of its theocracy (well founded, as it turned, out, particularly now that genetic science has disproven the fundamental premis of the Book of Mormon, a bit of scientific reality check Mormon professors at BYU dismiss as "unscientific" and "irrelevant" without any cause beyond their desire not to accept the facts on the ground, and to obfuscate their own inability to rebut the factual data).

Unfortunately, my mother and my sister converted back to that cult, and the results have been absolutely detrimental to their lives. Aside from the 10% income loss that they can ill afford, my sister's talents go unused as she struggles to raise the 7 children she and her Mormon husband had, despite the fact that they had no income to raise them with and are now subsisting in poverty in a small town with no economic options, and no funds to get out. Other examples in their lives abound, such as the toxic relationships they have had with abusive Mormon men (granted, not a statistical universe, but a decent sized anectdotal sample with thus far 100% failure rate). Whereas I, and all of my cousins whose parents were fortunately not coaxed back into the snare have had very successful lives and excelled beyond anyone's expectations, my sister (who started out with the same resources, more talent, and similar intelligence, but lacked the critical defiance necessary to assert one's autonomy in the face of institutional repression) has boxed herself into a deplorable situation through the beliefs and familial "duties" foisted upon her by her religion.

People who get out of Mormonism aren't ashamed of getting out. They're ashamed of having been in .. of having been suckered so completely, and been made an ass of for so many years. They are angry not because they don't "measure up" to some cult's silly notion of what people should be (don't drink that coffee sinner!), but because a religious cult has robbed them of so much of their life, and so much of the joy life has to offer, and left them struggling to overcome the painfule emotional aftermath that any abusive relationship leaves behind ... and don't kid yourself, there is no other kind of relationship between a human mind and a cult such as the LDS church, and it is a rare mind indeed that can free itself from the clutches of such organized indoctrination. I am very grateful my grandparents succeeded, and my defia

See: Libertarians for Life. Also see some secular arguments against abortion. Folks, you don't have to be a Christian Fundamentalist to oppose abortion.

Whew! At least we won't have to worry about seeing you on this list.

And how can you discuss it if you think anyone religious is a creationalist?

And not even all creationlists (those who believe God created the world) think it is 5,000 years old.

Genesis 6:3 reads:
Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with [1] man forever, for he is mortal [2] ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."
[1] Or "My spirit will not remain in"
[2] Or "corrupt"

Speaking as a Christian, my personal viewpoint is: God didn't want it because man is corrupt, and so I don't either. I don't need to stay in this world any longer than it takes to complete God's plan for me. The next world is far better, why focus on this one any longer than God asks of me?

I'm all for better quality of the life we have, but I believe the lengthening of it will inevitably lead to the same situation in Genesis 6 because of human nature -- which will not change.

Here is an interesting article titled New Discoveries in the Biochemistry of Aging Support the Biblical Record.

your camel-thru-eye-of-needle example (of biblical mistranslation) just doesn't work. sorry. after reading the above link, i think you'll agree that the passage was intended as hyperbole, not a gate. since you're aware of this common myth, i think i can safely peg you as a sunday school refugee. :)

i'm getting even further off topic... but i'll just posit that people's misgivings about biblical translations are pretty much unfounded...

the bible is, BY FAR, the most trustworthy ancient document as far as authenticity is concerned. see the table provided in http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg. html.

people don't seem to be too concerned about the authenticity of plato's writings but we've only got 7 manuscripts that are of the same quality/date-delta as the 24,000 manuscripts of the greek new testament. the way i understand things... the new testament is the most historically authentic ancient document that we've got. more info at http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.ht ml.

further... it's not as though there's any short supply of greek and hebrew scholars. our seminaries pump them out at huge rates. heck, even i took a few semesters of greek. my wife knows hebrew fairly well. the mainstream translations we've got, at least the english ones i've had access to... seem quite excellent to my lights.

in short, i think the "bad-translations" argument doesn't really work. at all.

I appreciate the page you refered to. Here is a page that gives evidence to the authenticity of the bible. Read it if you like.

Thank you for this link. I have begun reading the site and may respond at some point with specific comments/questions.

The Gospels were written 30 years after the death of Jesus. At that time, 30 years was like a news flash! The 2 earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after Alexander's death, yet historians consider them to be generally trustworthy.

I think you're missing the point, which is that just because someone wrote something doesn't make it true. Whether or not what we today call the bible is an accurate reflection of the original is only one of the problems. Just because you have an original copy of the Wizard of Oz doesn't mean that the story within is fact, even if archaeologists could use it to find Kansas.

Now you are trying to confuse 2 points. Your first statement said that just because Jesus died for us doesn't give any weight due to cult deaths. Jesus was considered a great man AND died for our sins.

I was responding to the idea that just because it's written somewhere that some people considered jesus to be a good man means that the story is true. It doesn't. The other part responded to the idea that jesus must have been right because he risked death. Various cults have risked (and found) death; it doesn't make them right. Neither idea is sufficient in itself to mean truth and the two ideas together also fail to prove truth.

God wasn't referring to physical death. God was referring to spiritual death. "For the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). Eating from the tree of knowledge disobeyed God's order which was a sin. Thus we must pay for our sin by being separated from God.

I've heard this claim made before, many times. Unfortunately the bible verses do not support this interpretation; it's just something that christians claim in the face of obvious error/dishonesty on the part of their god. Romans 6 is a letter from Paul; unlike Genesis, it does not purport to be the word of god directly.

God is all-powerful. But he gave us free will. He loves us very much and he wants us to choose him. But He doesn't want us to be forced to love Him. Would you want your wife to be forced to love you, or would you rather she "choose" to love you. God has paid for our sins.... we just have to choose to accept his forgiveness through Jesus

Ah, free will. This is the common explanation for why bad things happen. Unfortunately it ignores god's all-knowing, all-powerful nature. Would I want my wife to choose to love me? Yes. Would I punish a woman for not loving me? Of course not. Would I punish a woman for not loving me when I specifically created her in a way such that I knew (all-knowing, remember) would cause her to choose not to love me? Hell no! Free will doesn't excuse god from the essential mindless injustice of punishing people for doing something that he knew (all-knowing) they'd do and which he specifically designed them to do (all-powerful). The problem here stems from the wide variance between old testament god and new testament god. Old testament god shows signs of not being all knowing or all powerful. It was in the new testament that jesus started making all the claims or omniscience and omnipotence.

The other side of this is the idea that jesus had to die for god to forgive us (for

This turns out not to be the case. There is quite a bit of doubt about the authenticity of the bible, especially since the gospel accounts were all written well after Jesus's time and contradict each other.

I appreciate the page you refered to. Here is a page that gives evidence to the authenticity of the bible. Read it if you like.

The Gospels were written 30 years after the death of Jesus. At that time, 30 years was like a news flash! The 2 earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after Alexander's death, yet historians consider them to be generally trustworthy.

Which contradictions in the Gospels do you talk of? Many of the contradictions in the Gospels have been addressed by Strobel.

The majority of people who interacted with Hercules (according to the Greek writings we have) described him as a great hero. Is he real? Superman always seems to get good press in his various books. Do you see the point? All you have to describe Jesus's supposed actions is the bible, the authenticity of which is in grave doubt (since it contains many errors, inconsistencies and tales of things that didn't happen).

Now you are trying to confuse 2 points. Your first statement said that just because Jesus died for us doesn't give any weight due to cult deaths. Jesus was considered a great man AND died for our sins.

Reread Genesis; it was the Tree of Knowledge of Right and Wrong that they ate from. God said they'd die, the snake said they wouldn't. Gee, they didn't die. But that's not the point; the point is that they didn't know right from wrong until they ate of the tree. And that's what pissed god off, that they learned right from wrong. Even though, being all-knowing, he knew in advance that this would happen.

God wasn't referring to physical death. God was referring to spiritual death. "For the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). Eating from the tree of knowledge disobeyed God's order which was a sin. Thus we must pay for our sin by being separated from God.

If he wished that none would perish, none would perish. All-powerful, remember? The christian god is the ultimate mafia boss. "Gee, that's a nice soul you got there. Be a shame if anything happened to it."

God is all-powerful. But he gave us free will. He loves us very much and he wants us to choose him. But He doesn't want us to be forced to love Him. Would you want your wife to be forced to love you, or would you rather she "choose" to love you. God has paid for our sins.... we just have to choose to accept his forgiveness through Jesus

This is an interesting theory. I assume you have evidence that atheists consider themselves perfect? Because I certainly don't.

Not perfect.... just good enough. Not one person is without sin except for Jesus.

Yes, it's a truism that most atheists would have no problem with christians if they'd stop trying to shove their religion down our throats and stop trying to get laws changed to respect their particular religion. As for the personal relationship, until you prove that the christian god exists (or even provide some real evidence; conclusive proof might be too unreasonable a requirement) you might as well ask me to have a personal relationship with Santa Claus.

Agreed. Some Christians do shove thier religion down people throats and I believe that is wrong. Christianity is a personal choise and I hope you don't think that I am shoving my faith down your throat (otherwise I can say that you are shoving your non-faith down my throat) as I'm just responding to your comments. As for proof of God.... what would it take for your to believe? Does God have to come down and physically talk with you? Do you need to see a miricle? Would you need to touch the holes in Jesus's hand? All the above? Just curious....

I c

You don't need Acrobat to create PDFs.
[Example]

I may hate PDFs, but I doubt any Microsoft alternative is going to be better. They aren't exactly open source.

They'll figure out that the reason there are so many cities under water and so many civilizations have stories of massive floods about the same time is because there really was a Noah and he really built an ark.

Go and read about the canopy theory if you want to know what many creationists believe was the source for the majority of the water released in this flood.

This theory also explains why bones of pre-flood animals and civilizations would appear to be much older by our carbon dating standards. The reason is because carbon 14 is created by radiation bombarding carbon in our atmosphere and then being ingested or breated into the bodies of living creatures. Ask your average old-earth-theory carbon-dating scientist why C14, with a half-life of only 5730 years, is still found in all bones collected, no matter how old they are conjectured to be by some scientists. That's not supposed to be possible, but it makes sense when you consider the biblical view of the earths age at about 14,000 years max. The canopy would have blocked much more radiation than is blocked today, making radiocarbon levels much much lower.

Both StarOffice and OpenOffice *can* create PDFs in both Windows and Linux: I've been using this method for about eight months with no major difficulty.

In a nutshell, the applications rely on farming out the task to Ghostscript. It's not perfect -- TrueType fonts will sometimes result in uncorrectable errors (most often with apostrophes), and of course you may lack the ability to generate indexes and searchable documents, but for the most part, it's more than workable. It's been a godsend for me.

Finally, both Star/OpenOffices include (on the Linux side, anyway) instructions on how to do this yourself. Use the HTML reference above as a guide, and you should have no difficulties.

As far as I can tell using this solution is not an option for commercial services, but I am no legal expert, so use this at your own risk if this is the case.

Good luck.